21-02-2005 01:22									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

A tautology is a statement that may sound nice but is ultimately meaningless because it only defines something as itself; that is, "Pigs are pigs" is a very simple tautology. I'm not sure how exactly, but shawn seems to be saying that your disagreement is due to the nature of ethics as a subject rather than to the specifics of your argument. I think it has something to do with the fact that saying anything is "right" or "wrong" is assuming some system of ethics to begin with, so trying to discuss the ethics of a system of ethics just leads you nowhere, as you would inevitably judge that code by another system whose assumptions may or may not hold true for it...like a tautology, the argument just goes in circles.

	21-02-2005 01:23									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I know what a tautology is. I do not see what it has to do with why a disagreement is or is not genuine.

	21-02-2005 15:50									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Elok, as usual, you put it more bluntly and also more concisely than I do. I wish you wrote instruction manuals.

Slight clarification though - I was commenting that saying an ethical argument is right or wrong is not based off of any simple claimed statement. To examine ethics for right or wrong, instead look more at consistant or inconsistant. I submitted that Elok's stand on Abortion et al is consistant, and thus holds as an ethical argument. Slavery, or murder, being justified is not consistant, and therefor does not constitute a valid ethical argument. Remember the standards for an ethical argument - universal consistancy. It's applying that where it gets tricky, as I point out about the consequences of Elok's argument.

	24-02-2005 09:00									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Elok UR, how exactly do you define sentience in a way that it can be proven to exist or not exist in a child who can't speak? I've never heard anyone give me a straight answer on that score.

Sentience is basically the recognition of the self. Thus, a very simple test is the mirror test. Put a mirror in front of the subject: if it displays a "flight or fight" reaction, it's not sentient. If it smiles, makes funny faces, or show friendliness in other ways, it's highly likely the subject is sentient.

For example, dogs fail the mirror test, while dolphins and orangutans pass. I am saying this because "human rights" (more properly called "person rights" IMO) should cover all individuals that display sentience.

quote: Originally posted by Elok The arguments about intellect also apply to sentience, as sentience is generally spoken of as the height of human intellect.

You are getting into even deeper waters - what is intelligence?

quote: Originally posted by Elok I think the sentience argument idiotically simplistic; intelligence is a very deep and sliding scale, not just sentient or bestial.

On the contrary. The entire justification of "person rights" is each such person is a unique individual, and this in turn is based on sentience.

quote: Originally posted by Elok And your tumor example and the like seem to be just a deliberate misunderstanding done for perversity's sake on your part; you know what I meant, or if you didn't, hopefully I've made that more clear to you.

How so? Your definition of a person consists of these two criteria:

1. It's a blob of cells that posess human DNA
2. It's different from its "parents"

A cancerous tumor fits both, providing we use a loose meaning of "parents."

quote: Originally posted by Elok Any meaning read into any life beyond "blob of cells," which is a scientifically valid if imprecise definition of a human or indeed any lifeform

No. A "blob of cells" is not a scientifically valid defintion of any lifeform. Eexcept for sponges, and you are still stretching things here.

A "blob of cells" is a tautology here.

quote: Originally posted by Elok And for the sake of this discussion it doesn't matter if the dead guy is human, as a dead man can't be killed.

This is not about killing. This is about rights - a person has a right to life, thus, killing a person is illegal (with numerous exceptions).